Yep. A typo in my typo complaint. Charles
-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Marchant Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 10:10 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: STORAGE OBTAIN doc inconsistency? On Wed, 26 Jun 2019 09:36:26 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >Is this worthy of an RFC or am I missing something? > >https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3 >.ieaa400/iea3a4_STORAGE_OBTAIN.htm says > >,SP=subpool number >Specifies the subpool number for the storage. (See z/OS MVS Programming: >Authorized Assembler Services Guide for a list of valid subpools.) If you >specify a register, the subpool number must be in bits 24-31 of the register >... > >And > >,KEY=key-number >Indicates the storage key of the storage to be obtained. The valid storage >keys are 0 - 15. If you pass the storage key in a register, it must be in >bits 56-59 in that register. ... > >Isn't that bit numbering inconsistent? If the key is described as being in >bits 56-59, then the subpool should be described as being in bits 60-63, >right? ITYM bits 56-63. There are 256 subpools. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
